Dismissed

State of Haryana and Ors. v. Umesh Devi

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Aug 2010LPA/487/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed letter patent appeals filed by the State of Haryana. The Court held that the 2006 Compassionate Assistance Rules apply to pending cases despite deaths occurring before the rules were notified, denying the State's claim to withdraw previously granted assistance.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners held entitled to compassionate financial assistance as per Rule 6 of 2006 Rules; appeals dismissed.

State of Haryana and Ors. Vs Umesh… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

L.P.A.No. 487 of 2010, L.P.A.No. 488 of 2010, L.P.A.No. 489 of 2010 & L.P.A.No. 220 of 2010

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

L.P.A.No. 487 of 2010 Date of Decision:- 17.8.2010

¶5

State of Haryana and others Appellants .

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

Smt.Umesh Devi Respondent

¶8

L.P.A.No. 488 of 2010 Date of Decision:- 17.8.2010

¶9

State of Haryana and others Appellants .

¶10

VERSUS

¶11

Smt. Bimla Devi and others Respondents

¶12

L.P.A.No. 489 of 2010 Date of Decision:- 17.8.2010

¶13

State of Haryana and others Appellants .

¶14

VERSUS

¶15

Smt.Usha Rani Respondent

¶16

L.P.A.No. 220 of 2010 Date of Decision:- 17.8.2010

¶17

State of Haryana and others Appellants .

¶18

VERSUS

¶19

Smt.Sunno Devi and others Respondents

¶20

L.P.A.No. 487 of 2010, L.P.A.No. 488 of 2010, L.P.A.No. 489 of 2010 & L.P.A.No. 220 of 2010

¶21

¶22

CORAM : HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR. HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI.

¶23

Present: Ms. Mamta Singhal Talwar, Assistant Advocate General (Haryana) for the appellant(s)

¶24

To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

¶25

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?

¶26

RITU BAHRI,J.

¶27

These Letter Patent Appeals have been filed against the judgment dated 26.11.2009 passed by Learned Single Judge whereby he has allowed a bunch of Civil Writ Petitions No. 3564 of 2009 ( Bimla Devi and others Vs. State of Haryana and others ), 3663 of 2009 (Umesh Devi Vs. State of Haryana and others) , 5080 of 2009 ( Om Pati Vs. State of Haryana and others) and 1428 of 2009 ( Usha Rani Vs. State of Haryana and others) . The common point involved in all these writ petitions is whether notification dated 1.8.2006 which governs the rules of compassionate Assistance, is to be applied to the pending cases or not ?

¶28

In all these cases, the financial assistance was granted to the petitioners under the Rules known as Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 ( for short

¶29

L.P.A.No. 487 of 2010, L.P.A.No. 488 of 2010, L.P.A.No. 489 of 2010 & L.P.A.No. 220 of 2010 3

¶30

“2006 Rules”) but later on in the clarification issued by Chief Secretary, Haryana, on 8.6.2007, which was issued to the Accountant General, Haryana, it was stated that where the death has occurred prior to 1.8.2006 and where PPO and GPO have been issued by the office, then a person can not opt for new Scheme introduced w.e.f. 1.8.2006. It has further been stipulated that 2006 Rules would not be applicable in this case. It is, accordingly, pleaded that the compassionate assistance already granted to the petitioners has been withdrawn.

¶31

The petitioners challenged the impugned order by way of filing the instant writ petitions. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions. Reliance has been placed on the decision rendered in the case of Raj Kumari Vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. And others, 2008 (4) SCT 411, wherein it has been held that all pending cases under the ex gratia are to be covered under 2006 Rules. It has further been held that executive/administrative or clarification cannot amend the statutory rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. Thus, the justification given by the respondents to withdraw the assistance after having provided the same to the petitioners is wholly unjustified, unwarranted and cannot be sustained. Rule 6 of 2006 Rules categorically provides that the ex gratia assistance shall be covered under the new Rules. The option has been given to

¶32

L.P.A.No. 487 of 2010, L.P.A.No. 488 of 2010, L.P.A.No. 489 of 2010 & L.P.A.No. 220 of 2010

¶33

¶34

opt for lump sum ex-gratia grant provided under Rules 2003 or 2005 in lieu of the above assistance provided under 2006 Rules. Thus, 2006 Rules will clearly apply to the cases of the petitioners. This aspect has already been considered by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 3653 of 2009 ( Babita Rani Vs. State of Haryana and others) which was allowed on 2.7.2009.

¶35

Applying the ratio of the above two judgments delivered by this Court, all the Letter Patent Appeal Nos. 487, 488 and 489 of 2010 and 220 of 2010 are dismissed. The petitioners are held entitled for compassionate financial assistance as per Rule 6 of 2006 Rules.

¶36

A photo copy of this order be placed on the file of each connected case.

¶37

(M.M. KUMAR ) (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE JUDGE

¶38

17.8.2010 Anoop

¶39

L.P.A.No. 487 of 2010, L.P.A.No. 488 of 2010, L.P.A.No. 489 of 2010 & L.P.A.No. 220 of 2010 5

State of Haryana and Ors. v. Umesh Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Haryana and Ors. v. Umesh Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ruchi Manglik and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Naresh Kumar and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Mukhtiar Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Union of India & Another Vs Rampyari and Anr.

Santokh Singh Vs Presiding Officer and Anr.

State of Haryana Vs Dr. Muni Lal